Schema.org:使用微数据、RDFa 还是 JSON-LD? [英] Schema.org: Use Microdata, RDFa or JSON-LD?

问题描述

为 http://www.schema.org/Product<使用特定格式有什么优点/缺点吗?/a>?诸如搜索引擎比 JSON-LD 更能理解微数据"之类的东西?我想使用 JSON-LD，因为它不会弄乱您的 html 代码，但我不确定搜索引擎使用微数据是否会更好.

Are there any advantages/disadvantages in using a specific format for http://www.schema.org/Product? Something like "Searchengines understand Microdata better than JSON-LD"? I would like to use JSON-LD, because it doesn't mess-up with your html-code, but I'm not sure if it would be better concerning the searchengines to use Microdata.

推荐答案

没有通用的答案，这取决于数据的消费者.

There is no general answer, it depends on the consumer of the data.

特定的消费者支持一组特定的语法，并且可能会或可能不会推荐这些受支持语法的子集.

A specific consumer supports a specific set of syntaxes, and might or might not recommend a subset of these supported syntaxes.

因为搜索引擎通常会尽量确保不会误入歧途(例如，关于 X 的页面通过其 Schema.org 声称是关于 Y)，他们更喜欢将 Schema.org 元数据与页面的可见内容相结合的语法(在 HTML5 中，这将是微数据或 RDFa)；出于同样的原因，为什么许多元标签对 SEO 来说已经死了.

Because search engines usually try to make sure not to get lead astray (e.g., a page about X claims via its Schema.org use to be about Y), it seems natural that they would prefer a syntax that couples the Schema.org metadata to the visible content of the page (in HTML5, this would be Microdata or RDFa); for the same reasons why many meta tags are dead for SEO.

然而，情况并非总是如此.例如，Google 建议将 JSON-LD 用于其一些功能(我的粗体强调):

However, this is not necessarily always the case. Google, for example, recommends the use of JSON-LD for a few of their features (bold emphasis mine):

• 宣传评论家评论:

虽然我们强烈建议使用 JSON-LD，但 Google 也可以读取嵌入在具有微数据或 RDFa 标准的网页中的 schema.org 字段.

Though we strongly recommend using JSON-LD, Google can also read schema.org fields embedded in a web page with the microdata or RDFa standards.

站点链接搜索框:

我们推荐 JSON-LD.或者，您可以使用微数据.

We recommend JSON-LD. Alternatively, you can use microdata.

这篇关于Schema.org:使用微数据、RDFa 还是 JSON-LD?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！